ROYCE CHIRAYIL S/O. LATE GEORGE THOMAS, PERUMALY CHIRAYIL MANGANAM POST, KOTTAYAM Vs. STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT OF KERALA DEPARTMENT OF GENERAL ADMINISTRATION SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These writ petitions pertain to the appointment of State Information Commissioners in the Kerala State Information Commission.

(2.) The undisputed facts are the following : By a notification dated 2.12.2015, the State Government invited applications for appointment to the post of State Information Commissioner in the Kerala State Information Commission. The number of vacancies notified were 4. Sec. 15(3) of the Right to Information Act ('the Act' for short) provides that the State Chief information Commissioner and the State Information Commissioners shall be appointed by the Governor on the recommendation of a committee consisting of the Chief Minister ; the Leader of Opposition in the Legislative Assembly and a Cabinet Minister to be nominated by the Chief Minister. A committee as provided for under Sec. 15(3) of Act was, accordingly, constituted by the Government on 23.12.2015. Later, by notification dated 21.01.2016, the Government invited applications for appointment to the post of State Chief Information Commissioner and also to the post of State Information Commissioner. The second notification, as far as the post of the State Information Commissioner is concerned, was intended to fill up a vacancy in the said post arose after the first notification. Since large number of applications were received pursuant to the notifications, the selection committee in its first meeting resolved to short list the candidates. Accordingly, a panel of four persons for appointment to the post of State Chief Information Commissioner and a panel of fifteen persons for appointment to the post of State Information Commissioner were placed before the committee on 25.2.2016. In the said meeting, the Chief Minister and the Cabinet Minister nominated by the Chief Minister, proposed to appoint Sri. Vinson M. Paul as the State Chief Information Commissioner and the petitioners in this batch of writ petitions as State Information Commissioners. The Leader of Opposition expressed his descent to the said proposal. Despite the descent expressed by the Leader of Opposition, the selection committee recommended the names proposed by them for appointment as the State Chief Information Commissioner and as State Information Commissioners respectively. Accordingly, the file was forwarded to the Governor for appointment. In the meanwhile, some of the applicants for selection and some others preferred a batch of writ petitions before this Court, challenging the decision of the selection committee. Since the writ petitions were pending, the Governor returned the file observing that the file can be re-submitted after the disposal of the writ petitions.

(3.) The decision of the selection committee constituted under Sec. 15(3) of the Act was challenged in the writ petitions referred to above mainly on the grounds that the file does not disclose the criteria adopted by the selection committee for short listing the applicants ; that there has been no consideration of the comparative merits of the candidates and that the decision of the committee is not supported by reasons. The State opposed the challenge against the decision of the selection committee, contending that the selection was made strictly in accordance with the provisions of the Act and the decisions rendered by the Apex Court in this context. This Court dismissed all the writ petitions. Ext.P3 in WP(C).No. 18722 of 2016 is the judgment in the said batch of writ petitions. In Ext.P3 judgment, it was found by this Court that the criteria for selection to the posts are only that the candidate shall be a person of 'eminence' in public life with wide knowledge and experience in other disciplines referred to in Sec. 15(5) of the Act and that the individual integrity of the candidate should match the institutional competence of the Office of the Information Commissioner. It was also found by this Court in the said judgment that the intention of the legislature is to use the primacy of experience and the wisdom of the statesmen for such recommendation rather than a selection in the like manner of recruitment of an employee. It was further found by this Court that the selection committee has the freedom to choose a person who fulfils the twin criteria referred to above and therefore there is no necessity for the selection committee to explain the exclusion of other candidates. It was further found by this Court that there is no requirement to demonstrate comparative evaluation of the candidates to the satisfaction of all and that therefore if the recommended candidates would satisfy the twin criteria referred to above, it is not the province of the Court to prevail upon the wisdom of the selection committee by making comparative evaluation of the merits of the candidates.